My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE20871
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE20871
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:31:13 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:51:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981028
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
1/19/1994
Doc Name
RECOMMENDATION ISSUES TO CONSIDER on Assessment
From
DMG
To
FILE
Violation No.
CV1994001
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Y ~ <br />c) The extent of the actual or potential damage was minimal. In <br />one ditch, adjacent to the topsand pile A-1, the obstructed length <br />was approximately 20 feet while the second cited ditch along the <br />access road to the north, was sloughed in for approximately 100 <br />feet. This northern ditch was also designed into sand and it <br />appeared that due to the high winds experienced in December, that <br />the sand had been blown into the ditch along the length of 100 feet <br />or so. This second ditch runs the length of the northern permit <br />boundary and is over 1/2 mile in length, therefore the sloughed in <br />area represents less than i/20 of the ditch length. <br />Fault: Per Rule 5.04.5(3)(c) <br />The fault of the violation is due to operator negligence of <br />maintaining the ditches on the site. The last inspection of the <br />site was during snow melt and it was difficult to determine the <br />status of the ditch dimensions. During the January 4th inspection, <br />the site was dry and the ditches sited in the violation failed to <br />meet design criteria due to excessive sand blowing and slumping <br />into the bowl of the ditches. Since the ditches are constructed in <br />sand, more diligence needs to be exercised by the operator to <br />maintain their design criteria. <br />It is not apparent that the operator was intentionally or <br />recklessly negligent of ditch maintenance. <br />Good Faith: Per Rule 5.04.5(3)(d) <br />a) Abatement of the NOV was obtained in the shortest time <br />possible, with on-the-ground maintenance begun during the <br />inspection. <br />b) Abatement of the NOV was achieved (January 5, 1994), before the <br />expiration of the time fixed for abatement on January 10, 1994. <br />Abatement was confirmed two days after issuance of the NOV on <br />January 6, 1994. <br />c) Abatement was achieved by the operator taking extraordinary <br />measures in that the field dozer operator was called off his <br />current job to address the ditch maintenance before issuance of the <br />NOV took place. On-the-ground maintenance had begun before the end <br />of the inspection. <br />In view of these circumstances, I recommend a good faith effort be <br />considered. <br />Thank you for your consideration in this matter. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.